Re: Direct mapped like caching

On 6 Nov 2000, at 15:14, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:

> I think your description matches the reiserfs work and the
> digest-based approaches that were recently discussed on this list.
> There are minor differences here and there, but the big picture
> remains the same -- remove StoreEntry and rely on other mechanisms to
> detect hits/misses and manage cache store.

 yep, it matches ;) I've had it in my head for quite some time, and
 it popped up again exactly because of recent talks on reiserfs.

> In other words, do we really want to see Squid as a huge
> collection of super-compatible-and-inter-exchangeable modules? If yes,
> a *lot* of performance-unrelated work will need to be done first (and
> supporting a very diverse collection of approaches will most likely
> hurt performance at least a bit). If no, then compatibility and
> similar arbitrary choices will need to be made to select a small
> subset of the "best" modules.

 I think we should try to determine, what needs to be supported,
 review the list of approaches, find equal in features, and decide
 if we need to support old style. I think it may occur that we can
 implement old style ontop of new style, if only needed.
 Still, we are very fast approaching point where squid is not fast
 enough to handle loads and disk sizes required. I'd rather focus
 on performance and efficiency rather than internal compatibility.
 We can draw a line between <3.0 and >=3.0, and drop stuff that is
 slowing down further improvements.

------------------------------------
 Andres Kroonmaa <andre@online.ee>
 Delfi Online
 Tel: 6501 731, Fax: 6501 708
 Pärnu mnt. 158, Tallinn,
 11317 Estonia
Received on Tue Nov 07 2000 - 00:38:30 MST